"Kung tapat ang paniniwala ninyo na mayroon kaming itinatago, kung mayroon kayong mahanap, inyo na. It is called a quitclaim," Marcos said at the Kamuning Bakery's "Pandesal Forum." The family, he added, signed a quitclaim with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in the 1990s, but it was rejected by then President Fidel V. Ramos.

MANILA, Philippines—While the Aquino administration is “saddened” by the loss of lives in the Mendiola massacre 28 years ago, Malacañang on Thursday opposed critics’ view that President Benigno Aquino III is accountable for the deaths of the farmers demanding agrarian during the term of his mother, the late President Corazon Aquino.

“It is a historical event remembered annually… But perhaps it is not appropriate or timely to lay it at the door of the current administration, as everybody knows that this did not happen today. It is not right, it is not reasonable to make the current administration responsible for it,” said Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr.

The Supreme Court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), has unanimously set aside the 50-percent shading threshold that defeated vice presidential candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. sought to apply in the recount of ballots in his electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo.

I. The vote of leni robredo is a 25-year - old man who has been able to vote for leni robredo. This is fake news!

If we read the 26-page resolution of the pet, there is no declaration here 25 % the threshold that will be imposed on it.

Fact, the pet is clearly said that it is not issue in the revision proceedings the threshold because the threshold used by vcm is not the final determinant or basis if the vote is counting in favor of bbm or to robredo. The ballot will be subject to the pet's pagbusisi to determine the real intention of voters and weighed it according to objections and claims both sides (PAR 1, page 2).

Objections and claims: BBM can oppose the votes of robredo. Robredo can also oppose the votes of BBM. BBM or robredo may possess votes not clear for whom or votes not counted by the machine.

In the 25 s, he was not able to ask for the 25 % of the 25 % s. It is against the said of comelec and robredo's camp. And the letter of Comelec Commissioner Guia and the rma guide they gave to pet is not enough basis to change or amyendahan the rules of pet.

More than a pet, the rma guide, standing alone, is not official issuance or official act of comelec so no really legal basis to change or amyendahan the 2010 pet rules, especially in the issue of the revision of the ballot ( Par 6, page . Because of this, the 50 % threshold clearly stated in 2010 pet rules stayed and did not change. The 50 % threshold still ongoing pet basis.

In 2018, there was no more basis to change or enforce a new threshold in 2018 Revisor's guide where 50 % also stated that shading threshold (PAR 1, page 9).

In fact, according to pet, it is not a real 25 % of the vcms. According to the pleadings of comelec and robredo's camp, can be seen exactly 25 % the threshold that allegedly used. The pet is a range of 20 %-25 % (PAR 4, page 9). Their threshold is more melted.

In addition to a pet, there is no official document before the 2016 elections that prove that the vcms are, in fact, nakaset at 25 % (PAR 2, page 10). It is also my position . There is really no proof that 25 % is the threshold that nakaset before the election.

Because the purpose of the revision proceedings is only share by the votes of the conflicting party, the pet clarified it to be imposed by pagmimick how to read and numbered the votes (PAR 5, page 11). and because of Technical Factors are not able to use the vcms to execute it, the printed election returns that only pagbabasehan first of initial segregation or cutting the ballot and will not be used the threshold (PAR 1, page 18 ). This summary of the pet said "the 50 % shading threshold will not be used" (PAR 3, page 11).

These terms are pinagbasehan and distribute the fake news of robredo's camp today. They only choose the deceptive terms they want to emphasize because if the pet resolution is read, this is the consequences:

1. No longer use shading threshold with initial segregation or prior cutting of ballot in the revision proceedings.

2. The printed election returns will be used to see how the votes numbered the votes.

3. Each party can oppose the opponent's vote. In this pontong, bbm may object or oppose the 25 % Yoda votes or pre-shaded votes by robredo to eliminate or makaltas it in his tally. Bbm's basis here is the 2010 pet rules which remained 50 % the shading threshold.

4. in the final appreciation stage of pet or pagbusisi of ballot and objections and claims of both sides after the revision proceedings, the 2010 pet rules, where remained 50 % still the shading threshold, the Will prevail.

5. the retention of 50 % Shading Threshold In 2010 pet rules is solid basis to eliminate the gatuldok votes of robredo coming to the final appreciation stage of the protest.

That's why the pet says, just a partial reconsideration they gave to the motion of robredo to make 25 % the threshold. (PAR 3, page 6) he has not given his full request. There is no categorical declaration of 25 % of the shading threshold. The clearly said pet, the rules have not changed-50 % still the threshold that will follow the pet in protest.

In Sum, it is not really true to won in this issue.

II. For example, robredo is a temporary nakalamang. Pet kinatigan his request to use decrypted ballot images because bbm has not submitted the proof that they are compromised, tampered with or doubt that. More Pet, not enough simple accusations only.

On the other hand, there are also many of the comelec, the extraneous marks that are squares on ballot images even though it is not on the original ballot. It added the machine after the voters voted.

But the comelec has not explained in front of the Senate committee hearing on July 31, 2018 is the fact that I have shown the fact that these ballot images are already tampered or tampered with cheat. It is clear in evidence that I have shown the sequence numbers of ballot images (lost and deleted these ballot images) in the front and middle of the consecutive ballot list on vcm and added the ipinalit ballot ballot Images In the rear of such list.

The sequence numbers that nakaimprinta each ballot image are control marks of such ballot images. When these control marks have changed and are not consecutive because there is a jump, lost, deleted and added, it is clear signs of tampering.

Fact, at 368 vcms at the 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR, 4 Vcms only has a complete list of ballot images - no missing, speking or added images Images. But in 362 vcms, it was all missing, it was speking or added to tampered ballot images. In 362 this vcms, 37,152 added that ballot images. In Naga City, the bailiff of robredo, 13,936 has been added to tampered ballot images. There are 2 Vcms without any record.

I know it because we've discovered it. In 20, he was also a member of the 20th century in the house of representatives of the United States in 2018., 2018.

According to the camp of robredo, bbm is not able to oppose the decrypted ballot images because he itself asks for it and he has representatives to have decryption in comelec. This is a pet.

It's just proof that no one knows the along with this perspective. Bbm can't resist to oppose ballot images because he only asks for decryption. In decryption only see what is really the flesh of SD Cards. So after only decryption can see the anomaly, irregularities and elections in the election.

If we follow the view of the ignoranteng in the camp of robredo, no longer mapabulaanan the tampered decrypted images because just requested the decryption - the only way to discover the evidence of cheating - the party that wants to prove that they are tampered. Only those who are slick in this view to not discover their guile.

Bbm should be done with the pet decision on this issue and prove that these decrypted images are already tampered.

_________________Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others He who envies others does not achieve peace. - Buddha

I. The vote of leni robredo is a 25-year - old man who has been able to vote for leni robredo. This is fake news!

If we read the 26-page resolution of the pet, there is no declaration here 25 % the threshold that will be imposed on it.

Fact, the pet is clearly said that it is not issue in the revision proceedings the threshold because the threshold used by vcm is not the final determinant or basis if the vote is counting in favor of bbm or to robredo. The ballot will be subject to the pet's pagbusisi to determine the real intention of voters and weighed it according to objections and claims both sides (PAR 1, page 2).

Objections and claims: BBM can oppose the votes of robredo. Robredo can also oppose the votes of BBM. BBM or robredo may possess votes not clear for whom or votes not counted by the machine.

In the 25 s, he was not able to ask for the 25 % of the 25 % s. It is against the said of comelec and robredo's camp. And the letter of Comelec Commissioner Guia and the rma guide they gave to pet is not enough basis to change or amyendahan the rules of pet.

More than a pet, the rma guide, standing alone, is not official issuance or official act of comelec so no really legal basis to change or amyendahan the 2010 pet rules, especially in the issue of the revision of the ballot ( Par 6, page . Because of this, the 50 % threshold clearly stated in 2010 pet rules stayed and did not change. The 50 % threshold still ongoing pet basis.

In 2018, there was no more basis to change or enforce a new threshold in 2018 Revisor's guide where 50 % also stated that shading threshold (PAR 1, page 9).

In fact, according to pet, it is not a real 25 % of the vcms. According to the pleadings of comelec and robredo's camp, can be seen exactly 25 % the threshold that allegedly used. The pet is a range of 20 %-25 % (PAR 4, page 9). Their threshold is more melted.

In addition to a pet, there is no official document before the 2016 elections that prove that the vcms are, in fact, nakaset at 25 % (PAR 2, page 10). It is also my position . There is really no proof that 25 % is the threshold that nakaset before the election.

Because the purpose of the revision proceedings is only share by the votes of the conflicting party, the pet clarified it to be imposed by pagmimick how to read and numbered the votes (PAR 5, page 11). and because of Technical Factors are not able to use the vcms to execute it, the printed election returns that only pagbabasehan first of initial segregation or cutting the ballot and will not be used the threshold (PAR 1, page 18 ). This summary of the pet said "the 50 % shading threshold will not be used" (PAR 3, page 11).

These terms are pinagbasehan and distribute the fake news of robredo's camp today. They only choose the deceptive terms they want to emphasize because if the pet resolution is read, this is the consequences:

1. No longer use shading threshold with initial segregation or prior cutting of ballot in the revision proceedings.

2. The printed election returns will be used to see how the votes numbered the votes.

3. Each party can oppose the opponent's vote. In this pontong, bbm may object or oppose the 25 % Yoda votes or pre-shaded votes by robredo to eliminate or makaltas it in his tally. Bbm's basis here is the 2010 pet rules which remained 50 % the shading threshold.

4. in the final appreciation stage of pet or pagbusisi of ballot and objections and claims of both sides after the revision proceedings, the 2010 pet rules, where remained 50 % still the shading threshold, the Will prevail.

5. the retention of 50 % Shading Threshold In 2010 pet rules is solid basis to eliminate the gatuldok votes of robredo coming to the final appreciation stage of the protest.

That's why the pet says, just a partial reconsideration they gave to the motion of robredo to make 25 % the threshold. (PAR 3, page 6) he has not given his full request. There is no categorical declaration of 25 % of the shading threshold. The clearly said pet, the rules have not changed-50 % still the threshold that will follow the pet in protest.

In Sum, it is not really true to won in this issue.

II. For example, robredo is a temporary nakalamang. Pet kinatigan his request to use decrypted ballot images because bbm has not submitted the proof that they are compromised, tampered with or doubt that. More Pet, not enough simple accusations only.

On the other hand, there are also many of the comelec, the extraneous marks that are squares on ballot images even though it is not on the original ballot. It added the machine after the voters voted.

But the comelec has not explained in front of the Senate committee hearing on July 31, 2018 is the fact that I have shown the fact that these ballot images are already tampered or tampered with cheat. It is clear in evidence that I have shown the sequence numbers of ballot images (lost and deleted these ballot images) in the front and middle of the consecutive ballot list on vcm and added the ipinalit ballot ballot Images In the rear of such list.

The sequence numbers that nakaimprinta each ballot image are control marks of such ballot images. When these control marks have changed and are not consecutive because there is a jump, lost, deleted and added, it is clear signs of tampering.

Fact, at 368 vcms at the 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR, 4 Vcms only has a complete list of ballot images - no missing, speking or added images Images. But in 362 vcms, it was all missing, it was speking or added to tampered ballot images. In 362 this vcms, 37,152 added that ballot images. In Naga City, the bailiff of robredo, 13,936 has been added to tampered ballot images. There are 2 Vcms without any record.

I know it because we've discovered it. In 20, he was also a member of the 20th century in the house of representatives of the United States in 2018., 2018.

According to the camp of robredo, bbm is not able to oppose the decrypted ballot images because he itself asks for it and he has representatives to have decryption in comelec. This is a pet.

It's just proof that no one knows the along with this perspective. Bbm can't resist to oppose ballot images because he only asks for decryption. In decryption only see what is really the flesh of SD Cards. So after only decryption can see the anomaly, irregularities and elections in the election.

If we follow the view of the ignoranteng in the camp of robredo, no longer mapabulaanan the tampered decrypted images because just requested the decryption - the only way to discover the evidence of cheating - the party that wants to prove that they are tampered. Only those who are slick in this view to not discover their guile.

Bbm should be done with the pet decision on this issue and prove that these decrypted images are already tampered.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum